Newsgroups: news.software.b
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Patch dates or Patch Numbers
Message-ID: <1989Aug21.173144.7327@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1989Aug17.171000.23302@utzoo.uucp> <2876@itivax.iti.org> <1989Aug19.215016.23031@utzoo.uucp> <173@desint.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 89 17:31:44 GMT

In article <173@desint.UUCP> geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) writes:
>And face the truth:  well-designed maintenance is superior to
>poorly-designed maintenance, regardless of how much is required.  Why,
>when you have put so much effort into good design of your software, do
>you think it is an advantage to be deliberately sloppy about maintenance?

The key disagreement here is that we do not consider our scheme poorly-
designed or sloppy.  Different, yes.  And we admit that we consider it
experimental.  For various reasons, however, we like it and want to give
it a serious trial.

To reiterate:  We are interested in hearing about any serious non-obvious
problems with our scheme.  We are not interested in hearing repeatedly about
the obvious ones; we feel, at this time, that it has enough advantages to
counterbalance them.  We are not interested in hearing how silly we are not
to have thought of the obvious problems; we *have* thought of them.  We are
not interested in reading long explanations of how we're being silly, or of
how it's sinful and unprofessional to do things in unusual ways; we disagree.

At the very least, if people *must* repeat all the arguments we've already
seen 57 times, after having thought of them ourselves beforehand anyway,
we urge that it be done by private mail and *not* by further postings to
this newsgroup.  It's really getting boring and tedious, guys.  If you must
inflict it on us, at least have the decency not to inflict it on others.
-- 
V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.|     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu